Part I: Multiple Choice Questions - USC Gould School of Law

B. You can expect questions that track our class discussion of the main cases. Suchquestions would not be about details, such as who wrote the majority opinion in Smith, orwhich state supreme court decided Blanchflower. Instead, the questions would explorelegal reasoning. Here are two examples of such questions.3. At T1, the Supreme Court decided Smith. At T2, Mr. Watson traded illegal drugs fora firearm, and was convicted in the trial court. At T3, the Supreme Court has agreed todecide whether Watson’s conduct counts as “using a firearm” within the meaning of thesentence-enhancement statute. You represent Watson (you are part of the legal teamdefending him) and you are preparing for oral argument before the Supreme Court. Inyour argument, you plan to:a. Argue that the holding in the Smith case is best stated at a low level of generalityrather than a high level of generality.b. Urge the Court to assign more weight to the sentence-enhancement statute’spolicy goals than to the ordinary meaning of “uses a firearm.”c. Argue that in ordinary language, one who pays $1.00 for a cup of coffee has“used” the dollar in the course of the transaction, but has not “used” the coffee.d. Rely, as your strongest argument, on the historical fact that when Congressenacted the statute, it never thought of the fact pattern in which defendant tradesillegal drugs for a firearm.e. (a) and (c)4. In Garratt v. Dailey, the Washington State Supreme Court decided that:a. When Brian moved the chair, he knew to a substantial certainty that Ruth wouldattempt to sit where the chair had been.b. A minor can be liable for battery only if he or she has an estate from which he orshe could pay an award of damages.c. Knowledge to a substantial certainty that a harmful contact will result, counts asan intent to bring about a harmful contact, and thus satisfies the intent requirementfor battery.d. Like having an intention to do a particular act, knowing that one is doing aparticular act satisfies the volitional act requirement for battery.e. The case should be remanded to the trial court, with instructions to determinewhether Brian had a purpose to harm Ruth or play a prank on her, when he movedthe chair.Page 2 of 4